About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17
privacy laws and we need to update those laws. the last time the electronics communications privacy act was updated was in 1986 and a lot has changed since then. >> host: grover norquist what kind of access to law enforcement officials in the government have to our e-mails today? >> guest: right now it's not treated as if it's regular mail, snail mail. they can go into it as a third-party and put it up on the cloud. what we need to do is update the law to go alongside the changes in technologies that are sending each other letters. we send each other e-mails instead of keeping europe letter in your pocket you may stored in the cloud somewhere and that's should have the same privacy that you regular snail mail does in the post office delivering something and if we can do that. we have updated this from time to time, the technology changes. the technology has been changing quicker but to send someone an e-mail is like sending them a letter. it's the same thing. the fourth amendment is still there. >> host: also joining our roundtable today is -- of the hill newspaper. >> my first question
and use tax laws and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to any further proceedings in regard to this bill. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, today this august body will honor the memory of 20 first-grade children, little babies who were gunned down, most of them shot multiple times. we will also honor the teachers and administrators who were killed that day in newtown, connecticut. but we're also going to honor with this legislation tens of thousands of others who were killed by guns each year here in america. we're going to do that by voting on a number of measures to strengthen the laws to prevent gun violence in this nation. mr. president, the families of innocents killed in newtown, aurora, in carson city, blacksburg, in oak creek and columbine really deserve these votes. where do i stand on these democratic proposals? this afternoon the senate will vote on a compromised background check proposal crafted by senators manchin, toomey, kirk and schumer, all experienced l
control act? wouldn't it be appropriate for us to know what measures have to be taken in case existing law continues to prevail? >> we are -- yes, it is. we do. for example, i noted in my testimony we will be coming up to the congress a significant package of reprogramming request, which we have worked with the congress on. >> it's one thing to have reprogramming request. it's another thing to submit a budget, overall bijt that reflects the reality of the law as it is today rather than sending us a budget that has restoration of cuts that so far there's been no movement or action to rerepeal. i think we need to know what happens if we don't repeal. it's in your interest, in my view, to give us that information as to what would happen if we just simply comply with existing law. >> well, i want to address both the points. one, we are continuing to do that, senator. and as part of marty's testimony, part of my testimony on what we are doing and explaining working with committees here in the house and the senate on we continue -- don't make the change what will be requested. for example, suppl
and services and law firm income. if you want to encourage small business, we can work together. >> we cannot merthyr posted the code to try and alleviate pressure of taxes, but instead of having loopholes, why don't we have the raise? that way they decide for themselves what to do with capital, how to create jobs. there is where going to have an issue when it comes to tax reform. i don't want it well on this because i'm putting myself on the clock so we can get to everybody else here. has the president made any proposals since he's been president to raise taxes on families earning less than $200,000 for $250,000 for joint filers? >> the pledges prison and a pledge that it will not hit 50 below 250. another's disagreements on categorizing, but i'd be happy to have the conversation. >> i'm just trying to save the supreme court says the mandate is a task that obviously has everybody. including people making less than $250,000. the cigarette tax, smokers don't just make about $250,000. but the new 28% tax rate limitation on deductions kicks in families making $220,000. the point is your already
a budget at the reality is that the law as it is today rather than sending a budget that has restoration of cats that go far has been no movement or reaction to repeal. we need to know what happens if we don't repeal. it's in their interest to give the information that we just simply comply with existing law. >> we are continuing to do that, senator is part of marty's testimony, part of my testimony on what we are doing explaining working with the committees here in the house and senate what's going to be requested. for example, supplemental curb reissues. is that within the realm of what's going to be required? we don't know. i would add on the budget in one of the points made to smyrna nonmanaged, the senate and house budget resolutions for defend, essentially with basically the same numbers as our budget. not at all dismissing your questions that are real and legitimate under reality. as you know as well as anyone, this a $600 billion enterprise. this was put together of a series of the year and to readjust that and come back with new members in the budget. we are dealing with the rea
. rowan law required it, especially deformed infants. so you see t mor trsfati of the west in accordance with the clippity. whether you're christian or not, you can say, i see this happening. certain things now are held to be bad that before people were indifferent or thought were good. and then beginning in the early 1500's, but by the 1900's and the 20th century, the sort of arc of christianity starts to descend, and as we have increasing secularization of the west, that coincides with the rise of liberalism, because they really are in many ways, if not all ways, the same thing. and you see the same moral issues that you -- you s a clash in the christian moral world view and liberalism. liberalism generally takes the side of things affirmed in the roman empire. so this is -- i can see the trajectory. you ll see s transformation, which would look like a great arc. christianity transforms the west, secondarrization improves it. so that's howl i understand that liberalism has been established as a world view. isn't jut through the supreme court or congress or education. but there's a grea
. neither was infanticide. in fact, the roman law mandated it of especially deformed infants. infants would be left out, taken up into slavery or just die. so you see the moral transformation of the west in accordance with christianity. whether you're christian or not, you can say, yeah, i see this happening. certain things now are held to be bad that before, people that were indifferent about or thought was good. and then beginning -- well, actually, i argue beginning in the early 1500s but certainly by the 1900s and the 20th century, the sort of arc of christianity starts to descend s and as we have increasing secularization of the west, that coip sides with the rise of liberalism because they really are, in many ways if not all ways, the same thing. and you see the same moral issues, you see a clash between the christian moral world view and liberalism. and liberalism generally takes the side of the kind of things that were affirmed in the roman empire. so just as an historian of ethics, i can see that. not even have to take sides, you still see the same ethical transformation historical
, led negotiations for the reimplication of east east germ. he is proficient in economics of law, a doctor of law, and he's written a number of books most recently "the future of modernization: what we can learn from the crisis," and, mr. minister, delighted you with are us, look forward to the remarks, and we'll then pepper you with questions. >> thank you very much. sorry for being late, tday,r thout and minds are on the people in boston. we hope it will be over soon. i have to make some remarks, and in europe, and what i wanted to say, we are the member -- [inaudible] we all know the summit in london , up to the meeting today, and we have made a lot of progress. we agree. [inaudible] too much in the european markets,. it is three main issues we are working on. i think in the open markets, we made last couple years, and that is not. in liberty, finance, and marks, we have a different opinion. aits issue as of late. we have to continue in this country. what we've done in europe, and bond markets, banking. [inaudible] financial markets and it is a very -- [inaudible] everyone at
of prosperity and of nations living by rule of law and of nation's living in peace. countries where strong human rights prevail our countries where people do better, economies thrive, rule of law is stronger, governments are more effective and more responsive, and they are countries that lead on the world stage and project stability across their regions. strong respect for human rights isn't merely an indicator that a country is likely doing well. it actually unleashes a countries potential, and it helps to advance growth and progress. so i ask you just to think of the country like burma for a minute. because of steps towards democratic reform and stronger human rights protections, a country that had been isolated for years is now making progress. as it reached where we wanted to be? know, but it's on the road. it's moving. and more people are contributed economy and participating in the government, leading toasr growth andnt. and by starting to embrace universal rights, the burmese government has opened the doors to a stronger partnership with their neighborhood and with countries around the wo
sometime in the middle of the next decade. since the trust fund can't borrow if the laws are changed medicare will be unable to pay full payments for charges in the age i trust fund. it will only be able to reimburse providers 85% of what they are charging. so clearly legislative action has to be made before that he either to raise taxes or slow the growth in spending or preferably a little bit of both. i my reckoning i have completed my assignment and rather than take a gold star as i said i want to have a couple of general observations. the first when we have discussiodiscussio ends like this we should make clear what our goal this. if our goal is to moderate the growth of medicare costs what cost are we talking about quicksilver talking about the federal government scots? are we talking about the federal government and beneficiaries cost or are we talking about federal government scots in the beneficiaries cost and the cost borne by states localities and private payers? in other words, when we talk about medicare for former cost savings you can reduce medicare programs federal cos
. now that's important. morality is made by law. you also have no dividing of any human being allowed. that is the key. why? because you go to any pagen area, the faeroe, the roman cesar come alexander the great. you have a fusion of religious and political power. that is the normal situation, the fusion. caesar was the chief priest and the emperor considered divine. they stood right in and they make it more intense. jesus up the morrill antito make the case for the radical monogamy, it doesn't allow for the divorce and christianity, no pity and a lifelong union of male and female, no divorce except under very particular circumstances. so the church was the overseer of this new morality. and when jesus said my kingdom is not of this world, then he made the split complete because that meant the king in the temporal rule within to be kept distinct from the church and that developed in the middle ages. you have i think the account between the church and state by the pope when at the end of the 400 but saying for the sake of both the church and the state to have to keep a distinct. what h
don't have to pay, and diplomatic protections for the egregious violations of law. you can't take it to criminal court, but to the table to negotiate with those who tell you we're the only people, we, the jewish people, with rights in this land. these cold, hard realities of how u.s. policy grievancely harms palestinians are screened from the u.s. public. we bombarded, especially on television, instead, with dishonest rhetoric what is described as progress in a so-called peace process which extensively consistented of negotiations between near equals under the impartial gays of an honest american broker, all supposedly intended to create an independent palestinian state. i'm arguing that this is not what is actually happening. this is not what has happened for 35 years. what has happened is the continuation and the intensification and the reenforcement of the dispersal of the organization and colonization of the pal stippian people and their homeland. the united states, in fact, has never really operated as an honest broker between the palestinians and israel. i never talked to an
of retirement and health care benefits is consistent with what is required by the federal law of ups, federal express and every other almost every other corporation in the country it would be very similar. >> it could be different from what the private sector companies are doing. i would like to know, i would like to make that available to the postal employees that i represent throughout the country. >> you are correct but it's not the same for health care benefits. i will provide a more detailed record. >> you are saying the postal service now is operating at 140% of current revenue; is that the number you gave? >> drm laes, unfunded liabilities. >> bankruptcy would probably be where they are. >> finally let me go to something completely unrelated. you testified he wanted more flexibility in their rates in respect to packaging the monopoly on first-class they would have it facto monopoly on the third clause catalogs and what people would refer to as door hangers and nobody has the reach you do. how do you give that flexibility without giving you the power to do sweetheart deals and take the
led the negotiations for the reunification of east germany. he is proficient in economics and law and vlad holds a doctorate of law and is written a number of books most recently the future of modernization, what we can learn from the crisis. mr. minister we are delighted you are with us and we look forward to your remarks and then we will pepper you with questions. >> thank you very much. sorry for being late. today we are, our hearts and minds are with boston and i hope it will be over soon. i have to make remarks on the financial markets that are going well in europe as you all know. [laughter] i will be brief to have time for discussion and therefore i just want to say we all remember the crisis that started in the united states in 2008 and in 2008 we all agreed it will never happen again. we have to learn our lessons. the summit to london and pittsburgh and a two the g20 meeting today in boston. we have made a lot of progress in doing this since then. we agreed that the reason -- there are three reasons. too much -- too much liquidity in the financial markets and too few regu
by will you -- must include the contributions of the transgendered? by law. you will have to have pages on transgendered contributions. people who were crossed over sex, or dressed in the other sex. clothing. isn't that absurd? isn't that totalitarian? i thought the purpose of the textbook was to tell the truth, not make groups feel good. but as i point out in the book, leftism is overwhelmingly rooted in feelings. >> host: dennis prager is the author. "still the best hope" is the name of his recent best seller. louis from florida, you're on the air. you're talking with dennis prager. >> caller: i'd like to ask mr. prayinger and his ilk what he just said about truth, why should people believe the bible when that's the biggest novel ever written? who believes the earth is 5,000 years old? how can you follow a book that tells you the world is 5,000 years old and hisclass commentary about the christian schools and the seminary, how does he say something like that and he wants to be honest? i know this man is a right winger, and he wouldn't fifth credit to anybody, but my main question is,
both would have to sign before to become law. they would have to agree on executive order, sipri court nominees, decisions as commander-in-chief of the military. each would have their own vice president for a small personal staff but all other appointments the executive branch or the judiciary would be a single joint appointee. with that they could make decisions so much more quickly. you sort of have a democrat nominating a democratic person or republican for republican. you would have a bipartisan nominee and there wouldn't be a confirmation in the position will be filled much more quick way. in all likelihood they would divide up primary responsibilities. one might direct health care and the other education. one might focus on our relations with european countries and the other with asian countries but when it would come time to make decisions they would have to agree. all decisions would have to be shared decisions. joint decision would make it more representative decision-making. instead of having a republican president champing the platform of the republican party or a democratic
and our law enforcement to do everything necessary. but i must tell you a couple of gabe stories before i go there -- through my remarks. the first being triggered byron's comment about -- ron's comment about computer support. i when i first told ben, his brother, that gabe was in computer support for the office the reaction was dad, you've got to be kidding. [laughter] gabe was not computer tech especially. somebody needed out how to figure out how to do it so he did it. the other thing i want to mention was a tail of courage -- talent of courage. not exactly gabe's courage. there was a shooting in southeast arizona, a rancher was shot. there was great fury over it. and gabey decided she needed to meet with the ranchers directly and understand their concerns. gabe was talking about the preparation for for this and i listened awhile and said son, these people are very upset. it's awfully brave of you and your boss to talk to these people. he said, actually, i recommended against it. it's her idea. and it went very well. they appreciate it. and this is the kind of person gabriel is. [appla
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17